(* This is a provisional translation by an external company for reference purpose only. The original text is in Japanese.)

Press Conference by Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada

Date: Friday, June 4, 2010, 2:50 p.m.
Place: MOFA Press Conference Room

Main topics:

Opening Remarks
- (1) Prime Minister Hatoyama’s Resignation
- (2) Meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade
- (3) Recommendations by the Task Force on Improvement of the Working Environment of Female Employees (omitted)
- (4) Public Announcement of Investigative Committee's Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents
Public Announcement of Investigative Committee's Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents
Domestic Political Situation
Opening of Press Conferences (to All Media)
Democratic Party of Japan Presidential Election (omitted)
US Military Realignment Issue
Duties of the Foreign Minister
Handling of the Issue of Ethnic Minorities
Others (Changes in the Media)

1. Opening Remarks

(1) Prime Minister Hatoyama’s Resignation

Minister Okada: I have four announcements to make at the beginning. The first, while I think there will be questions on it, is about Prime Minister Hatoyama’s abrupt resignation. At the moment, it is not clear as to when an imperial investiture to appoint the (new) Prime Minister and the formation of the cabinet will take place. In any case, I believe that each minister must carry out his or her duties until progress is made in such procedures. I am not supposed to speak about what I stated during the Cabinet meeting, but since, for example, the Korean Peninsula situation, etc. are in a state of high tension in a certain sense, I believe that we must be thoroughly prepared until the start of the next Cabinet so that we can respond appropriately regardless of what happens or when something happens.
   Therefore, I think that it is somewhat too early to make remarks about what this (the current) Cabinet has done. Some ministers have apparently done things like receiving flowers, and perhaps that is what has been done traditionally, but I believe that as long as we advocate political leadership, it is natural for us to fulfill our responsibilities until it has been decided who will be the next top leader.
   After my inauguration, I went on 15 overseas business trips and visited 20 countries. I wanted to observe the field as much as I could, so I took a hands-on approach. Amid this situation, there are various points that need to be reflected on with regard to the Futenma Air Station relocation issue, but since Japan and the United States managed to reach an agreement in the end, I believe that I was able to fulfill my minimum responsibility. However, as I have previously said, this is only the beginning, and there still remains a very important matter, which is to gain the understanding of the people of Okinawa. In that sense, it is true that we are still very far from the initial plan to completely settle the issue by the end of May, and it is very regrettable and I feel very sorry about that.
   With regard to Afghanistan and Pakistan, we managed to compile a plan to provide a maximum of $5 billion (in aid) over five years, and that is memorable to me, or is an achievement for me. Discussions on how to use this aid will go into full swing. The Kabul Conference is scheduled for June, and it is very regrettable that the Hatoyama administration has ended before that.
   In addition, I have repeatedly held extensive discussions with various foreign ministers on nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, and climate change. The situation is such that the direction of Japan’s nuclear policy is finally emerging. It is also very regrettable that the Cabinet is coming to an end amid this situation.
   With regard to Japan-China and Japan-ROK (relations), on the occasion of the recent visit to Japan by Premier Wen Jiabao, the Chinese side prepared certain answers with regard to the food safety and East China Sea issues, on which we had patiently worked (to resolve) so far. Of course, we have to wait and see whether these issues will be gradually resolved, but I feel that it is very gratifying to see the results of our patient efforts emerging. However, there are many things related to these issues that we still need to work on resolutely.
   Furthermore, I feel that we were able to engage in various endeavors such as strengthening the system of disclosure and management of documents, which has been triggered by the issue of secret agreements, and improving the working environment of female employees, which I will be providing explanations later or having voices from the outside, such as NGOs, reflected in our policy measures.
   In any case, although I believe that it is very problematic to Japan’s national interests to change the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister within a short time, Prime Minister Hatoyama is resigning and the Hatoyama administration is coming to an end for some other reason. Therefore, in a certain sense, I feel that it is of no use to talk about it.

(2) Meeting of APEC Ministers Responsible for Trade

Minister: My next announcement is about the meeting of APEC ministers responsible for trade, which will be held tomorrow and the day after tomorrow. This is the first ministerial meeting to be hosted by Japan serving as the chairing nation for the APEC Japan 2010 meeting, and it is an important meeting that will lead to the APEC Ministerial Meeting and APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting to be held in Yokohama in November. Ministers responsible for trade or their proxies from 21 economies are to participate in the APEC meeting. From Japan, Minister (of Economy, Trade, and Industry) Naoshima and I will participate and serve as the chair, as long as we still are ministers at that time.
At this meeting, discussions are to be held on support for the multilateral trading system, the assessment of achievements of the Bogor Goals for 2010, APEC priority issues, and the future of APEC.

(3) Recommendations by the Task Force on Improvement of the Working Environment of Female Employees (omitted)

(omitted)

(4) Public Announcement of Investigative Committee's Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents

Minister: I have one more announcement. It is about the publication of the investigative report by the investigative committee on the issue of missing diplomatic documents. I think you have handouts. We have decided to disclose this investigative report. There are some parts on which we would have liked to spend a little more time. But in the event that a new minister takes over, (the process) would have to start all over from the beginning. Therefore, we had been conducting a rush job from yesterday to work out the final details so that we could disclose the investigative report today.
   The investigative committee on this matter was set up on the 6th of April to investigate and confirm the facts with regard to the issue of missing diplomatic documents. It consists of four members: State Secretary for Foreign Affairs Takemasa, Professor Katsuya Uga of the University of Tokyo, Professor Sumio Hatano of the University of Tsukuba, and me.
   There were three items subject to the investigation. The first was on the red files and memos of former Treaties Bureau Director-General Togo; the second was the systematic and intentional destruction of documents at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the Act on Access to Information came into effect; and the third was the documents related to the secret agreement on the return of Okinawa such as the Yoshino-Schneider “Summary of Minutes.”
   With regard to these issues, we conducted interviews over the past three months with about 15 persons mainly among former vice-ministers for Foreign Affairs, former directors-general of the Treaties Bureau, and former directors-general of the North American Affairs Bureau.
   I would like to briefly speak about the major points of the investigative report.
   First of all, no one except Mr. Togo knows about the red files and we were not able to confirm their existence. However, aside from the format and separation of the documents, it was confirmed that the documents in the office of the director-general of the Treaties Bureau were passed on by Mr. Togo to his successor Mr. Yachi. Most of the documents in the possession of the director-general of the Treaties Bureau are copies, and aside from whether it is appropriate to destroy those copies, it cannot be immediately said that this in itself is illegal. On the other hand, according to Mr. Togo, some of the documents in the red files were originals. If the originals were destroyed or lost, that would be extremely regrettable.
   Secondly, I would like to speak about the destruction of documents before the Act on Access to Information came into effect.
   It is true that throughout Kasumigaseki (district in Tokyo where most government ministry offices are located, often used figuratively to refer to the Japanese bureaucracy), including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, documents have been systematically sorted out. For example, a considerable volume of documents awaiting final approval, documents in the draft stage, or copies and the like have been destroyed. That does not mean that we think that consolidating documents before the enactment of the law in itself is a problem. On the other hand, it would be a problem if important documents that should have been saved were systematically and deliberately destroyed. As a result of the investigation conducted this time, however, testimonial documents that hint at the possibility of such attempts were not confirmed. Nevertheless, aside from whether documents were destroyed deliberately in the course of a series of consolidating of the documents, we cannot rule out the possibility that documents have been destroyed inadvertently, and that important documents including those related to the so-called secret agreements have been lost.
   The last point is about the “Note of Discussion.”
   As a result of the investigation, it is not necessarily clear whether the original of the Summary of Minutes existed in Japan from the beginning. In other words, it is not clear whether there was only one original copy and the United States took it back, or whether there were two originals. Additionally, it is likely that copies were made, but it is uncertain where those copies were kept. If they were lost while in storage, that would be a problem in that they were not kept properly. However, not keeping the copies or destroying them at some point cannot be considered illegal in themselves. This is not a matter of ordinary documents, but had drawn attention from the beginning as the secret agreements issue through media reports at the time. In that sense, even if they were copies, I believe that failing to keep them properly in itself can be considered a big problem.
   In the verdict of the first trial at the Tokyo District Court, it has been presumed and certified that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs possesses the “Summary of Minutes,” without mentioning the results of the MOFA’s thorough investigation. The verdict has not touched upon what kind of judgment was made on the fact that such thorough investigations were conducted as well as on the investigation results.
   In any case, I hope that, along with the serious lesson learned that losing diplomatic documents is tantamount to losing history, this investigative committee’s report will contribute to strengthening and improving documentation.

2. Public Announcement of Investigative Committee's Report on Issue of Missing Diplomatic Documents

Uesugi, Freelance: I have a question about the investigative report that has now been released. With regard to the second disposal of documents before the Act on Access to Information whet into effect, you said that while it was not intentional, the possibility that important documents were discarded cannot be denied. Some of the Foreign Affairs bureaucrats who disposed of them may still be employed at the Ministry; do you plan on taking disciplinary action against those individuals?

Minister: Firstly, what is written here encompasses a large number of documents. Before the Act on Access to Information went into effect, all of the government agencies were consolidating documents, and there is no problem with it in itself. Moreover, when there are copies all over the place, then when we receive request the disclosure of documents, we need to locate where the document is. So we consolidate and number them properly, so that we can respond properly to these requests. At that stage, there was nothing wrong or illegal with discarding duplicates, consolidating documents that are still in progress – or in other words, are not official documents – and sorting out memorandum on hand. I do not think that it should be reproached.
But we cannot categorically deny the possibility that in this process, vital documents may have been lost. We are completely unable to identify who did this, or how. Consequently, the current investigation has concluded that these findings will not lead to disciplinary action or the like.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: From what I can see this investigative report, in short, although a number of statements were made by Mr. Togo, they could not be confirmed as far as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is confirmed. It ended at that stage, but in an ordinary investigation, for example, one might think that one should ask Mr. Togo again if the person cannot be identified, as you stated, or go through those kinds of procedures. Did you say earlier that you wanted to spend a little more time because you have this in mind? It feels like, you got some testimony but you could not go as far as to confirm it with the MOFA side. What did you want to do by spending more time?

Minister: Firstly, Mr. Togo wrote in a magazine. Then, he testified at the House of Representatives' Foreign Affairs Committee. And he testified for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' investigation of the secret agreements as well. He was also called for this investigation, and we heard what he had to say. Although he was formally called for a hearing just once, we have heard him further in order to confirm certain things, in a supplementary way after wrapping up the overall matter. And the results are as written here.
When (what he says) fails to match his original statements, then I think that it is practically impossible to clear up the matter without physical evidence. I think that even if we had a little more time – a week or two – the result would not have been different. The fact is that he was the only one who knew about the red file holder itself.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: Please comment a little further on the matter of time.

Minister: Actually, I had worked on the documents once again from last night until a little while ago. I really wanted to do it in a slightly calmer environment. I hope that there are no unexpected errors.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Firstly, regarding the report, this was a report from the investigative committee. As to the status of this report, I would like to confirm if this report reflects the view of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as you yourself served as committee chair. Also, on the topic of the document by Mr. Schneider and Bunroku Yoshino, you said in your opening statements that "it is likely that copies were made." May we take it that the contents of this document itself were confirmed between Japan and the United States at the time?

Minister: When I am asked two things, I forget (the question), but firstly, precisely speaking, this report has not yet approved by Professor Uga, who is a party to the matter. We have not been able to contact him. Consequently, in this sense, it is possible that it will change slightly. You may count on the general outline, but I forget and should have firstly mentioned the possibility that it could change slightly. It is the present situation we tried to reach him via email, etc, though. We have contacted Professor Hatano, and he accepted (the report). It is the present situation.
On this topic, even listening to what Mr. Yoshino has to say, the testimony at the public hearing in the Tokyo District Court was, "I think that the Japanese side also made a copy, but this was not a necessary document for the Japanese side, so I think that it was suitably stored." At the interview by the Expert Committee on the secret agreements, it was stated, "I think that a person at the First (North America) Division of the American Affairs Bureau made a copy of the original, but since it had no significance for Japan, it may have been thrown out or incinerated. I do not know."
At this hearing by the investigative committee as well, as written here, he said, "If there is one original initialed summary of minutes or the like, then that original is only held by the United States, and no original exists on the Japanese side. If there are two originals, then Japan and the United States may each have one. My memory is actually not certain on that point." Therefore, it is not clear. Was there initially one original, or two? If there was one original, then the Japanese side only has a copy. Was that copy made? His memory is actually vague on them.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: I wanted to ask your understanding of the contents of the report; specifically, whether you have the premise that Japan and the United States confirmed that (Japan would) subrogate four million dollars.

Minister: My understanding in this regard is the same as in the investigative report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Miyai, Yomiuri Shimbun: From the investigative report, I see that 15 people were interviewed, including former vice-ministers. The only names that are listed are Mr. Yachi and Mr. Fujisaki, but the earlier investigative report by the Expert Committee on the secret agreements listed the names of those interviewed. I would like to know why they are not listed this time, and if there are no problems, I would like you to tell us who they were now.

Minister: The last time, (the interviewees) consented, but this time, the subject matter in a sense includes sensitive contents, so we did not gain consent, and thus did not disclose Mr. Yachi, and others were named because otherwise the meaning out of context could not be understood. We specifically requested and have got approval from them.

Iwakami, Freelance: On the topic of the discarded documents, you said something like some important documents were slipped in (and lost). You said that it could not be determined who discarded them, or how. But is there any possibility that this was committed intentionally?
In any actions, the judgment differs considerably depending on whether it was intentional or unintentional. Even when no laws were broken intentionally, they could pretend to be unintentional while committing grave actions. There is a room for such reasonable doubt. I get the perception that this is being judged rather leniently, by saying it was unintentional, but I would like to confirm this point: whether you pursued this point rigorously, whether this was investigated.

Minister: The investigation was rigorous. We could not confirm, I mean, we could not hear from anyone saying that it was intentional. Anything beyond that is speculation. That is why all we can say is that we do not know.
   Another point is that the issue of disposing of copies is difficult. Normally, it is the original that is to be saved. As long as the original is kept properly, then there is no problem with disposing of copies. For example, I have a number of copies on hand. When a new Minister takes this post, I will probably put them all through the shredder, but this is on the premise that the original will have been kept as official documents.
   But in fact, the original may not exist any longer. It is not always possible to check this in detail each time, so it is naturally possible that a copy of an important document would have been disposed of amid ambiguity. As I stated earlier, it has not been confirmed whether this was done intentionally. I am not denying the possibility (of international disposal). I am saying that it has not been confirmed.
   Next, there are also cases where important originals are missing, and this was caused by the lax document management system that has been in place until now. The background to this was that not enough focus had been placed on saving these documents for disclosure in the future. If you ask me my view, I think that although there are many government offices, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is still better at saving documents than other government agencies. But when people are lost in their day-to-day busy schedules, they inevitably become less attentive to consolidating and saving documents. When one is transferred, lack of no time made officials simply thrown out documents as they saw fit, or their successor inherited the documents without being able to distinguish them. I think that we need to change this way of thinking itself. Based on this, I recently determined a new system including awareness-raising for document disclosure.

Iwakami, Freelance: You stated that new rules to be set regarding how to save and release documents for publication. If, as you said just now, employees from top to bottom are probably lost in their busy day-to-day schedules, and tend to treat important documents lightly, or dispose of them, without much consideration, and there is such pervasive and constant attitude, then I think that it will be extremely difficult to change this. Will this new system of rules turn this around completely, and ensure that the originals of important documents are saved properly? Please tell us your outlook on this matter.

Minister: I think that after the Act on Access to Information was enacted, all of Kasumigaseki changed. In addition to this, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this clearer based on the decision of the Declassification of Diplomatic Records and Document Management Measures Headquarters. Until then, it was up to individual skills. The task of saving (documents) was left to the individual. I think that we have created the basic environment by changing this so that they were saved properly at the organizational level. Now, the issue is with individual awareness. I think that we have got to change this through thorough training and the like.

Uesugi, Freelance: You said earlier that "losing diplomatic documents is tantamount to losing history," and I agree with that completely. I think that it can be said of diplomatic documents in general that once they are lost, they are extremely difficult to recover, but fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be, the other party to the secret agreements, the United States, has retained the English-language versions of the documents. Of course, they have been retained as documents of the United States, but would it be possible to use these US documents to recover, in other words to recover the Japanese document as well? Or is some other method possible? Please comment on this.

Minister: Regarding these US documents, there are cases where there are two of the same document, and cases where there are US memos on correspondence, official cables, and so on. For example, regarding the Ohira-Reischauer meeting, there are official cables and the like that Ambassador Reischauer sent to his country. Can we think they are completely correct? There were some secret language and difference in perception. I thus think that it is not possible to bring these documents to Japan as-is; there are also differences in position.
There are also cases where common documents do not exist in Japan, but do exist in the United States. But since they are not in Japan, and since it is known that they are of course in the United States, I think that it then will probably become the job of the researchers. The question is then how to interpret this.

Uesugi, Freelance: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not intend to restore the original state in this form?

Minister: If a lost document is brought here from overseas, it can ultimately only serve as a reference. I think that it would be extremely difficult to consider the replacement as complete body of documents.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: My question concerns the "Summary of Minutes" between Bunroku Yoshino and Mr. Schneider. In response to my earlier question, you stated that it is in line with the previous report by the committee of outside experts as well as the views in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' report. I was asking about understanding of the existence of the documents, their contents, and their particulars.

Minister: So I said three things. Three things: the court testimony, the results of our original investigation, and this investigation. I have only spoken about that.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: So then, this is in relation to the court decision. There was talk that the verdict does not state or mention how the fact that a thorough investigation was performed was incorporated into the verdict, but I think that one of the central pillars of the gist, or the purport of the verdict was that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs itself should explain why they were not at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In this sense, I understand that you have long been saying that it was not investigated, but then I think that truly one of the things that this investigation should have clarified is why it was not. In this sense, there is no choice but to proceed on hypotheses that there is no original, and that nothing clear is known, regardless of whether a copy was made, but do you plan to respond to the question in the verdict of why it did not ultimately exist?

Minister: I do not think that the verdict asks why it did not exist, or orders the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to give an explanation. It is my understanding that it says us to perform a proper investigation. And we have performed this investigation fairly thoroughly. We also conducted hearings. These were not mentioned at all. So if you ask us how the verdict thinks of us, the answer is that we do not know. I think that it is very peculiar. If they had waited a little, it would have been made public.
But even so, in this investigation we additionally interviewed new people, but then again, nothing further was found.

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: My question is somewhat related to the disclosure of documents. According to the National Public Service Ethics Act, civil servants must report gifts of food or drinks worth 5,000 yen or more, or compensation therefore, but only gifts of 30,000 or more are made public. This means that in practice, the only things that will be made public will be things like expensive lectures, or writing of manuscripts beyond a certain number of pages in length, but I think that the reason why the National Public Service Ethics Act was originally created was to make civil servants report gifts because of growing public awareness of the issue of entertaining (civil servants) and the like. I think that if only amounts of 30,000 or more are made public, then nearly none of the entertaining, which was seen as the problem, will be made public. Although this is a problem with the law, as a Minister who emphasizes accountability to the Japanese people, do you have any plans to lower the standard for making public, for making them viewable to the public?

Minister: My tenure as Minister may be ending, so I think that it is best not to say too much. But at the least, they made reports within government. In this sense, it ensures us to properly check internally.
The practice of it and that of public disclosure are not necessarily the same, I think. I do not think the two have to be the same.

3. Domestic Political Situation

Beppu, NHK: I am changing the topic. On the subject of new Prime Minister Kan, with regard to the Futenma issue in particular, what are your expectations and your message from your position to settle the agreement between Japan and the United States?

Minister: As the Japan-US agreement was decided at a Cabinet meeting, it was a decision by the Cabinet. Therefore, I believe that it will of course be respected, and that it will be handled of course without any change even after the change of the Cabinet. Now, whether that Japan-US agreement will be carried out will depend on the explanations to the people of Okinawa, and their understanding. So, I would like a new Cabinet to put their full efforts into this matter.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: You said that as long as you are the Minister, you have the responsibility. Our questions will be very different depending on whether this will be your last press conference, or whether you will be re-appointed. Is it possible that you will be re-appointed?

Minister: You are asking the wrong person.

Ukai, Asahi Shimbun: Would you rather be re-appointed, or return to your party and work there?

Minister: I do not have any preferences. Of course, there is still a lot of work left unfinished. Thinking of Japan's national interest, I think that the general consensus is that the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs should not change too frequently. But the person with the proper authority to appoint personnel is the Prime Minister, and I personally have nothing to comment about that.

4. Opening of Press Conferences (to All Media)

Iwakami, Freelance: I think that opening these press conferences since you were appointed Minister is a fantastic achievement, and I feel respect and gratitude to you for this. Quite unfortunately, however, this attempt at openness has not spread to other ministries and government agencies as one might have hoped. They have become slowly more open over the past eight months, but the passion for openness of you and Minister Kamei stand out, taking the plunge and going all out for openness from the beginning. I think that it was extremely unfortunate to see the rest of Ministers did not go as far.
If Mr. Kan becomes Prime Minister and appoints a new Cabinet, please let us hear your thoughts on whether this trend will change, if the era of openness will progress further, or whether you plan to keep working for this, whatever your position may become.

Minister: I do not have a very accurate understanding of other government offices, but I think that it has spread quite a bit. Am I wrong?

Iwakami, Freelance: The Ministry of the Environment created what are called "general press conferences" once per week, and they were very short, at 15 minutes. For the past three weeks, they have been cancelled. This is one example.
This is why I think that in terms of actually open (press conferences), you and Minister Kamei have stood out for giving proper press conferences, and giving us plenty of time, and showing an attitude of answering straightforwardly no matter what question was asked. I have attended as wide a range of press conferences as I was able, and my impression is that press conferences are not yet sufficiently open at this time.

Minister: This is also the thinking of the new Prime Minister. I think that some things will depend on that, so I should not say anything from my position. The Democratic Party of Japan has always been calling for openness, and I think that the press conference of the Party is now completely open. There may be some things left to do now, but in this sense, I think that it is preferable for this to spread as much as possible.

Hatakeyama, freelance: I have a question relating to making press conferences open. Today, you were smiling brightly at the ceremony to kick off Naoto Kan's election campaign. Regarding Mr. Kan, when he was the Minister of Finance, only two press conferences were held in the Ministry of Finance's Press Conference Room. Nearly all press conferences have been limited to the members of the press club only at the Prime Minister’s office and the Diet. In the past elections, you were very early to come out in support for Mr. Kan, and he actually became the (party) leader. Do you plan to make any suggestions to Mr. Kan regarding an attitude of making information public?

Minister: I have no such plans. Probably, regarding the (press conferences) that Mr. Kan gave at the Prime Minister's office, he had two roles – one as Minister of Finance, and the other as Minister in charge of the economy – and if it was in this second role, it would have been at the Prime Minister's office. It may have been more pleasant to do them at the Prime Minister's office, though. I cannot say anything about that, can I? But I think that openness has become firmly established as one of the styles of a Democratic Party of Japan government, although it may have been slow to come about. So I think that it would be preferable for this to spread even more.

Uesugi, Freelance: I have a question relating to making press conferences open, or rather I would like to express my gratitude, since today might be your last press conference as foreign minister. Since I do not know what Mr. Kan is planning.

Minister: It might be.

Uesugi, Freelance: In that sense, I would like to thank you for opening the press conferences on September 29th of last year, and continually giving opportunities to the FCCJ, including to magazines, Internet journalists, and including freelance journalists ever since. Earlier, you told us a kind of overview of your tenure as Minister, but you did not touch on your opening of the press conferences. So, I would like to ask you again about the difficulties you have gone through. When you had the Cabinet meeting, you made effort not to say a word until you came back here. Although those kinds of efforts were visible to us, could you tell us again about the behind-the-scenes difficulties that we could not see? Also, were there any good parts?

Minister: I have not had any difficulties in particular. Certainly, when I am busy, it can be quite difficult sometimes to make more than an hour of time; that is certainly true. Also, during my tenure, I started to make an effort to make my answers shorter, because my statements were not quoted in full, and the longer my statements, the smaller the quoted portion became. But if my answers are too short, then they can seem inconsiderate, so I struggled with that. But it was a great opportunity for me to come to these press conferences, and respond to your questions and comments, although it may be going a little too far to say that they were a form of stress relief for me. In the end, it is vital to communicate externally, and I am very grateful to have been able to do so.

5. Democratic Party of Japan Presidential Election (omitted)

(omitted)

6. US Military Realignment Issue

Yoshida, Okinawa Times: During yesterday’s presidential candidacy press conference, President Kan passed out his statement to participants in the conference room. The statement said to the effect that he intended to “bring about the reduction of Okinawa’s burden while acknowledging the Japan-US agreement.” While I think that the Okinawa side is paying attention to this acknowledgement, do you feel that it is necessary to build some kind of mechanism for dialogue between the local communities and the government under the new Prime Minister?

Minister: As the Cabinet, that would be necessary, as a matter of fact. Whether the Prime Minister will directly do that is up to the Prime Minister to decide, and I feel that it is not something on which I should make a comment. If we look back at the past, the Chief Cabinet Secretary or the Defense Minister has served as the point of contact for dialogue with Okinawa. Of course, the Foreign Minister has been in charge of military base issues. As I have said that “in order to gain understanding over the Japan-US agreement, the entire Cabinet needs to tackle (the issues),” I believe that we need to set up a proper system for that.

Yoshida, Okinawa Times: On a related note, with regard to the leftover homework from the joint statement, there are talks of making a decision on the location of the (Futenma Air Station) replacement facility or the construction method by the end of August. In creating a framework for dialogue with the local communities, do you plan to hold consultations to time it (gaining the understanding of local communities) for the end of August, or do you plan to have Japan and the United States work out the matters (location, construction method, etc.) up until then (the end of August) and thereafter promote dialogue (with the local communities) to negotiate and finalize the conditions? Please tell us about your thoughts on this.

Minister: This is also a matter on which relevant ministers should hold thorough discussions and make decisions under the new Prime Minister. I think that this is a matter that should not be put off too much, as the end of August is not too far away, and a decision has to be made soon. Since dialogue with Okinawa is necessary, it is difficult to think that Japan and the United States will go ahead without this dialogue and make decisions on the location and construction method. But from a broader perspective, considering that the government must gain the understanding of the Okinawa side by properly firming up its own plan, it does not mean that the matter would not move forward without achieving a complete agreement with the Okinawa side. Rather, there is a timing of the 2+2 ministerial meeting, and if you ask me whether the matter will not move forward without gaining complete understanding from the Okinawa side by the end of August, I feel that that is not the case. I believe that it is necessary to spend a little more time and make further efforts to gradually gain the understanding of the Okinawa side.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: At the beginning, you said that “there are various points that need to be reflected with regard to the Futenma Air Station relocation issue.” What specifically are the points that you feel need reflection?

Minister: Considering that the people of Okinawa have become so distrustful, I think there naturally are many points on which we need to reflect. I feel that there were slightly more different ways that we could have approached (the people of Okinawa), such as the way we did things or the way we tried to talk. We also fanned up their expectations very much.

Takimoto, Ryukyu Shimpo: Does that also include the way you did things?

Minister: Yes, of course. Perhaps I did not fan up expectations very much, rather it could have just been the opposite, but in any case, I feel that I am also responsible for what has happened.

7. Duties of the Foreign Minister

Takahashi, Asahi Shimbun: As you have served as the Foreign Minister for eight months, please tell us about how you feel about the gap between what you had in mind during the time the DPJ was an opposition party and (what you have in mind) now that you are actually in a position within the government to conduct diplomatic negotiations.

Minister: Actually, I do not feel that (gap). Of course, there are various things such as the sense of speed (in getting things done), or that it is necessary to go through various stages. For example, this also applies to the nuclear issue. Nuclear-free zone treaties, the no-first-use nuclear policy – these matters cannot be brought about immediately. Before that can happen, it is necessary to reduce the role of nuclear weapons or to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. Otherwise, nuclear-free zone treaties would be unrealistic, so it is necessary to go through such stages. Nevertheless, there have hardly been any changes to my own way of thinking. Other than that, since the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a large organization, it is necessary to change its customs, or the way it does things, or the mechanism, in order to mobilize the organization and resolve issues. It seems that at this time, these matters have finally gotten on track in general.
I believe that a number of things that Premier Wen Jiabao spoke about this time, such as the Chinese side indicating it plans to establish better communication in the East China Sea or on the (high) seas, is one of the results of our persistent efforts that could at times be taken as obstinate. I feel that it is very important at the foreign ministerial level to do various things to properly resolve issues instead of shelving them. When it comes to the summit level, I think that it is important to create the overall framework rather than focus on specific issues, but for foreign ministers, I believe that it is important to properly resolve specific issues even if friction occurs at times.

8. Handling of the Issue of Ethnic Minorities

Ida, Shukan Kinyobi: With regard to the opening of press conferences (to the media), I would like to once again express appreciation and pay respect to the fact that starting this year, Shukan Kinyobi is able to attend the press conferences as a result of the lifting of the restrictions that limited participation in the conferences to members of the Japan Magazine Publishers Association. Based on that acknowledgement, here is a question from a journalist who writes for Shukan Kinyobi. It is about the issue of ethnic minorities.
I think that the Hatoyama administration has paid close attention to ethnic minorities including the Ainu, but (the journalist’s question) is about Syria. This year, (members of) the Kurdish community visited the Japanese Embassy in Damascus on the 21st of March, which reportedly happens to be a New Year’s festival, and presented an invitation requesting the attendance (of embassy personnel) to this New Year’s festival, reportedly held in the city of Kamishli (Al Qamishli). The journalist said that the (Japanese Embassy) responded very coldly. It is said that British and Swedish diplomats actually attended the festival, but no one from the Japanese Embassy attended it. Please tell us how you feel about this.

Minister: I do not think that I can simply comment on this without confirming the facts. In addition, I think that it will be quite difficult to make a categorical remark as I imagine that such matters as the number of personnel in the Western countries’ embassy staff and that of the Japanese Embassy in Syria are probably quite different. However, if they got the impression that (the Japanese Embassy) was “very cold,” that would be very regrettable.

9. Others (Changes in the Media)

Iwakami, Freelance: Let me ask the last question about the opening of press conferences. In your answer to the earlier question on the opening of press conferences, you said to the effect that words you speak during a press conference get taken out of context and end up getting reported in a way that differs from the way they were intended. However, with the development of the Internet, an information environment has come about in which your comments directly reach the listeners in their entirety. I feel that the waves of political changes in the form of a change in government, social changes in the form of the changes in the information environment, and technological changes have taken place at the same time and piled on top of each other. Things like Twitter and Ustream have emerged, and you are standing right at the crossing point of changes in politics and the media. What do these changes in the media alter, or during the past eight months, how did you sense these changes as an actual feeling? Please let us hear your comments on these points, even if briefly.

Minister: I do not have much to comment because I am pretty much one of those people who have missed out on the waves, but as to the first point you mentioned, I have decided to put my comments on my own blog twice a week. Therefore, in the event that there are reports that substantially differ from my thoughts, I have decided to say, for example, that these reports are not true or that this is what I actually said. I feel that the fact that such an opportunity has been easily secured has helped raise the quality of reporting in general. As for the rest, unlike Minister Haraguchi, who is almost constantly tweeting, I barely manage to put something on my blog twice a week, and then I was thinking about purchasing an iPad, which would enable me to read newspapers while overseas, as the foreign minister goes abroad frequently, and now this happened, this cabinet reshuffle.

Back to Index